Two out-of-topic comments before going to the main topic.
- There is still no evidence for GUT type decays of proton have appeared from Super-Kamiokande (see this): as noticed by Phil Gibbs this negative result could be much more far reaching that finding of Higgs bosons since GUT type low energy phenomelogy is starting point of all theory building during last years. Maybe some young brains are sooner or later ready to question the existing belief system. Separate conservation of quark and lepton numbers and therefore stability of proton against GUT decays is what TGD predicts.
- There are also some empirical motivations for speculations about the existence of fourth generation quark and Tommas dorigo is even ready to make a bet for it (see this). TGD predicts an infinite number of fermion families (they correspond to the topologies of partonic 2-surfaces) but there is a good argument that there are only three light generations. Unfortunately, the argument leaves open what "light" precisely means.
- For some reason the Lamb shift anomaly of muonic hydrogen that I discussed in previous posting from TGD view point has stimulated very little blog activity. This is strange since the discovery challenges the basic foundations of quantum field theory and thus also of superstring models.
The notion of Higgs in TGD framework differs from that of standard model and super-symmetric extension in several respects.
- Higgs does not give the dominating contribution to the masses of fermions (p-adic thermodynamics does it) . It might give the dominating contribution in the case of gauge bosons. Even this is not absolutely clear. A mechanism modifying the ground state conformal weight from half-integer value could also give a small contribution to the mass of the particle.
Higgs is needed since the longitudinal degrees of massive gauge bosons must come somewhere and scalar particle is the only natural candidate here. The transition to unitary gauge leaving for Higgs only its magnitude as a dynamical degree of freedom is an elegant manner to describe how this happens.
- There is no good argument excluding the existence of scalar and pseudoscalar bosons deserving the attribute "elementary" in the same sense as gauge bosons. Just the opposite. Bosonic emergence means that "elementary" Higgs particles are constructed by a recipe similar to that applying in the case of gauge bosons: that is by putting fermion and antifermion a the opposite light-like throats of a wormhole contact. This makes it also natural for Higgs particles to transform to longitudinal degrees of freedom of gauge bosons. Of course, the description of these states in terms of quantum fields is only an approximation.
- The two complex SU(2)V doublets are replaced with real scalar and pseudoscalar triplet and singlet (2 +2 → 2× (3+1)) so that the number of field components is same as in standard model. The Higgs possibly developing vacuum expectation is now uniquely the scalar singlet unless one allows parity breaking. The basic reason to group theoretical differences is that in TGD 4-D spinors are replaced with 8-D spinors.
- TGD predicts super-conformal symmetry and the recent view about it predicts the analog of broken space-time supersymmetry. The modes of induced spinor field on light-like wormhole throat define the generators of super-symmetries. This supersymmetry has as the least broken sub-symmetry N=1 SUSY generated by covariantly constant right-handed neutrino. Therefore also sparticles- in particular Higgsinos- should exist.
- The number of dynamical Higgs field components is 5 as in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model. The basic difference between MSSM and TGD is that the second neutral Higgs is pseudoscalar in TGD.
Since it is boring to transform tex to html, I give a link to a short pdf file Comparison of TGD Higgs and with MSSM Higgs. For details you can see also the chapter p-Adic Mass calculations: Elementary Particle Masses of "p-Adic Length Scale Hypothesis and Dark Matter Hierarchy".